Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Seagate To Stop Making 7200rpm Laptop HDDs

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the mourn-the-spinning-platters dept.

Data Storage 261

jones_supa writes "'We are going stop building our notebook 7200rpm hard disk drives at the end of 2013,' said David Burks, director of marketing and product management at Seagate Technology, during a conversation with X-bit labs. The mainstream market demand is expected shift to different products, such as hybrid drives. Users who need maximum performance and care about battery life have been choosing notebooks with SSDs for years now, whereas those who required capacity and moderate price do not really care about actual performance. With the introduction of third-generation solid-state hybrid drives later this year, Seagate will position them for performance- and capacity-demanding end-users. The company will also continue to offer 5400rpm HDDs for value notebooks."

cancel ×

261 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

SSDs are a fad (-1, Troll)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about a year and a half ago | (#43057663)

And a swindle. Catastrophic failure lurks around the corner for all SSD users. Serious compotore users do not sore mission critical datas on SSDs. Period. Take the kazoo out of your mouth, Slashdort!

Re:SSDs are a fad (4, Funny)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year and a half ago | (#43057747)

And a swindle. Catastrophic failure lurks around the corner for all SSD users. Serious compotore users do not sore mission critical datas on SSDs. Period. Take the kazoo out of your mouth, Slashdort!

You misspelled Commodore.

Re:SSDs are a fad (-1, Troll)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about a year and a half ago | (#43057777)

Dear Slashdort commenter "rudy_wayne", does your extreme stupidity give you headaches? Perhaps it is a vasovagal reaction to warehousing goat turds in yout rectum. Consider that I hate balls.

Re:SSDs are a fad (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43058403)

don't pick on him just because you can't spell commodore

Re:SSDs are a fad (1)

alen (225700) | about a year and a half ago | (#43057789)

so are 7200 RPM drives. i remember when they came out in the 1990's and all the benchmarks said they weren't much faster than 5400 in real speed

NCQ made the biggest difference. along with where the data was stored on the platter.

Re:SSDs are a fad (5, Funny)

gweihir (88907) | about a year and a half ago | (#43057931)

And a swindle. Catastrophic failure lurks around the corner for all SSD users. Serious compotore users do not sore mission critical datas on SSDs. Period. Take the kazoo out of your mouth, Slashdort!

I agree! And the same is true for computers in general. I mean, even the Mars rover had a computer failure. And HDDs can also fail catastrophically. Who would ever use such an unreliable technologies for anything? Paper is the way to go!

Re:SSDs are a fad (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43058073)

But paper is highly flammable and prone to decomposition. Baked clay (or stone, if you can afford it) tablets are the way to go!

Re:SSDs are a fad (5, Funny)

gweihir (88907) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058101)

Clay? Stone? Epic fail! It breaks if you drop it! Just like a HDD! We have to carve everything into silicone foam-rubber!

Re:SSDs are a fad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43058383)

Nope that stuff decays too.

Make everything from diamond.

Re:SSDs are a fad (1)

WGFCrafty (1062506) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058437)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trementina_Base [wikipedia.org]

You're all wrong,There is is only one way to preserve his word from destruction by psychiatrists or evil Xenu.

According to the CST, an entity formed to manage the Church of Scientology's copyright affairs, the purpose of the base is to provide storage space for an archiving project to preserve Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard's writings, films and recordings for future generations. Hubbard's texts have been engraved on stainless steel tablets and encased in titanium capsules underground. The project began in the late 1980s.

Re:SSDs are a fad (4, Insightful)

seifried (12921) | about a year and a half ago | (#43057953)

This is true of any storage medium. Also what happens if you laptop gets lost or stolen? Catastrophic loss of data is always just around the corner, as such you need to be making backups, ideally off site in case your home/office/data center/whatever burns down/gets flooded/clobbered by a tornado/hurricane/whatever. Bad things happen to good data, so make copies!

Re:SSDs are a fad (1)

Stormthirst (66538) | about a year and a half ago | (#43057973)

Just don't use Evernote to do your backups

Re:SSDs are a fad (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058033)

Implying spinning rust platters are reliable

Re:SSDs are a fad (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43058039)

And a swindle. Catastrophic failure lurks around the corner for all SSD users. Serious compotore users do not sore mission critical datas on SSDs. Period. Take the kazoo out of your mouth, Slashdort!

A global user base and a few million MTBF hours makes you wrong.

The fact that you think only SSDs suffer from critical failures makes you an idiot.

Any knowledgeable computer user doesn't store "mission critical" data on a single drive, or even in a single location. Idiots do. Running a different type of hard drive isn't going to change that. Murphy will still win.

Re:SSDs are a fad (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43058053)

Of the many laptop hard disks I have personally owned (Western Digital, Seagate, Hitachi and Toshiba) have all failed/are showing pre-fail signs over SMART apart from two. Those two are a 7200rpm 500GB WD Black which is a 2nd disk in my main laptop, and an ancient Hitachi IDE drive in a old laptop I no longer use. I have disassembled a dozen laptop disk drives of mine over the years to destroy the platters. I have 3 sat next to me in an anti-static bubblebag with a few bad sectors each for scratch/temporary use.

Of the SSDs I have personally owned (Kingston, Corsair, Intel, Samsung and OCZ), not one has failed or is showing problems over SMART. The only issue I have ever had was a compatibility issue between an Intel SSD 330 and the Intel SATA AHCI controller on my main laptop, where the drive would stop responding to the computer (it didn't do it on other SATA controllers).

True, it is just anecdotal evidence, but I have yet see to see a failed SSD in person.

Re:SSDs are a fad (1)

cgenman (325138) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058193)

My laptop hard drives average 1.5 years between failure. If an SSD drive dies in 5, that's a huge improvement.

Re:SSDs are a fad (2)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058227)

My laptop hard drives average 1.5 years between failure. If an SSD drive dies in 5, that's a huge improvement.

And if you stop buying Seagate drives you'll see an even bigger improvement. I buy from the other large HD manufacturer and I average at least 3-4 years on my laptop drives with my laptops running on average at least 12-16 hours per day, year round. Generally I end up replacing them due to need for more storage space before I replace them due to failure; I still have a 30gb laptop PATA drive that works fine from 2004.

Re:SSDs are a fad (1)

whoever57 (658626) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058269)

I stopped buying from WD because:
1. Advanced format -- who wants to deal with a drive that lies about its layout?
2. I bought a 1TB drive that the S.M.A.R.T. data shows is perfect, yet would always give I/O errors after I had written 900GB of data (and no, it wasn't my misunderstanding of disk space measurements).

I was having good luck with Samsung and HGST, but now we really only have 2 manufacturers, who are (I believe) intent on gouging their customers after the tsunami and until they go out of business because SSDs have made them obsolete.

Faster notebook drives. (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#43057669)

They're not just for notebooks. Quiet and small form factor conventional drives have a place in things like Tivos and personal recording devices for TV, etc. If all the manufacturers bail out, we'll have to build larger devices like this to fill that niche. Unless, of course, SSDs suddenly drop in price... which they should have done by now, but hey... p-p-profit!

Re:Faster notebook drives. (0)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year and a half ago | (#43057759)

Quiet and small form factor conventional drives have a place in things like Tivos and personal recording devices for TV, etc.

DVRs do not need 7200 RPM drives. 5400 RPM is plenty.

Re:Faster notebook drives. (1, Informative)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#43057901)

DVRs do not need 7200 RPM drives. 5400 RPM is plenty.

An OTA HDTV signal is about 20mbit/s. Now the rub is, most PVRs have the option to record at least two channels simultaniously. And it later needs to be read back out, then re-encoded, and written later -- real-time encoding is very, very processor intensive if you want any kind of quality. 5400 is fine for storing. It's not good for encoding/decoding simultaniously. The other thing is, budget 5400 RPM drives have smaller buffers. Which means they're going to be a lot slower for something like video.

Re:Faster notebook drives. (4, Informative)

squiggleslash (241428) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058051)

I tend to use my CPU to do the re-encoding myself, I find my hard drive (and the SATA protocol) just isn't Turing complete and, as a result, is incapable of converting something to H.264.

RPM is about access times, not about data rate. Movies are about shoving massive amounts of data to the drive in a linear fashion. For that reason, and the high cost of SSD storage per gigabyte, I can't see any reason on Earth why DVRs would switch over.

Re:Faster notebook drives. (1, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058391)

I tend to use my CPU to do the re-encoding myself, I find my hard drive (and the SATA protocol) just isn't Turing complete and, as a result, is incapable of converting something to H.264.

A wise decision.

RPM is about access times, not about data rate.

And now you've gone retarded. Faster RPMs reduce latency, but because the sectors are also moving past the heads faster, it increases bandwidth as well. Sorry you flunked physics, man.

Movies are about shoving massive amounts of data to the drive in a linear fashion.

Thanks for that, captain obvious. We didn't know.

For that reason, and the high cost of SSD storage per gigabyte, I can't see any reason on Earth why DVRs would switch over.

I can see a very simple reason. It was the reason in my original post: It's called the They Stopped Making Them theory. It goes a little like this: You can't find them anymore, and because they're complex electromechanical devices, we can't just bang rocks together and have a 7200 RPM drive with a SATA connector plop down next to the fire.

Yes, I can do sarcasm too. Unlike you, however, I also realized that when you're writing something to disk at 20mbit/s times however many channels you want to watch, if you also want to re-encode those so you don't, say, run out of HDD space after watching a few weeks of your favorite shows, you'll need to be reading that data back off again, then doing all your "turing" operations on it, since as you so eloquently put it, your HDD isn't turing complete, and then writing it back to disk.

The PVR needs to not just write out 1 or more streams, but it also needs to be able to read it out (so you can watch stuff! Amazing!)... and while this is happening, also be able to do an encode/decode, which represents another pair of I/O streams.

Very quickly, you find that you're running out of bandwidth, and that your freshly minted computer science degree has not prepared you for this elementary realworld example. You'll then promptly core dump, catch fire, and no longer be a source of future snark for thousands of slashdotters who wasted precious minutes of their life reading your comment.

Re:Faster notebook drives. (2)

jamesh (87723) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058075)

DVRs do not need 7200 RPM drives. 5400 RPM is plenty.

An OTA HDTV signal is about 20mbit/s. Now the rub is, most PVRs have the option to record at least two channels simultaniously. And it later needs to be read back out, then re-encoded, and written later -- real-time encoding is very, very processor intensive if you want any kind of quality. 5400 is fine for storing. It's not good for encoding/decoding simultaniously. The other thing is, budget 5400 RPM drives have smaller buffers. Which means they're going to be a lot slower for something like video.

I have a >5 year old PC with 2 USB DVB tuners in it running mythtv that can record 4 shows and have 4 of us watching different previously recorded shows over 802.11bgn wireless without breaking a sweat. It has a 7200RPM drive in it, obviously, but a 5400RPM drive isn't that much slower, and the PC has 2GB memory in it so there is plenty of memory for buffering anyway.

If i want to fast forward 30 seconds to skip ads, or try and do ad detection or transcoding then it starts to hurt as the CPU just isn't up to it, but IO bandwidth really isn't a problem

Re:Faster notebook drives. (4, Informative)

bored (40072) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058079)

The sequential throughput rates for 5400 RPM hard drives are not noticeably different from 7200 rpm hard drives. At least not as much as a naive assumption of the ratio between rotational rates and a fixed areal density would make you believe (and the density isn't fixed). The big performance advantage of faster spinning harddrives is due to the reductions in rotational latency. For problems where large buffers can be sequentially filled or written between seeks (aka video) you won't notice a difference. At 20MB/sec just about any drive on the market can sustain 4+ streams if the buffers are > than a few MB. This wasn't true 10 years ago, but the increases in density have made modern 5400 RPM drives considerably faster than the 7200 or 10k drives from years past (for problems not related to seeking).

Re:Faster notebook drives. (1)

citizenr (871508) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058265)

An OTA HDTV signal is about 20mbit/s. Now the rub is, most PVRs have the option to record at least two channels simultaniously. And it later needs to be read back out, then re-encoded, and written later

what have you been smoking? why would you reencode perfectly fine (well, I LOL every time I am reminded that US went with mpeg2 instead of mpeg4 like the rest of civilized world) mpeg2 stream?

Re:Faster notebook drives. (2)

SpiceWare (3438) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058425)

That's one of the benefits of switching to digital later than the US did - the specs for ATSC were published in 1995, a few years before the late 1998 release of MPEG4.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC_standards
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-4

ATSC was updated in 2008 to support H.264.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/09/22/atsc-2-0-includes-support-for-h-264/

I've recently cut the cord and implemented a Mac mini + a couple of HD HomeRun tuners and discovered that there are H.264 broadcasts in Houston. However, they're an encrypted as it's for a pay service with a handful of channels targeting the Hispanic community.
https://www.airbox.com

Re:Faster notebook drives. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43057773)

Seagate are Jews. They are trying to force everybody into buying their SSDs because they fail faster and so people will buy more of them.

-- Ethanol-fueled

p.s. I can smell your cunt.

Re:Faster notebook drives. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43058069)

Haha, disregard that I, Ethanol-fueled, love to suck cocks.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Faster notebook drives. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43058127)

If you're gonna pretend to be me, at least sign in italics. Because it's classy as fuck. Like I am. ANd boy, do I love to smell cunts. To use a wine analogy - good pussy is like good Pinot Grigiot. It doesn't have a taste, just an aftertaste. And in the cause of pussy, the aftertaste is akin to that of tomato juice.

I'm really sorry to see what happened to this place. Dice job listings masquerading as articles? Those bitches who work at Dice writing those articles are beat-up cunts, especially the cornfed who worked for USA Today and likes dogs. Likes to be fucked by dogs, because her husband wants nothing to do with her. Try wiping your ass properly, snatchole!

[em]

-- Ethanol-fueled

[/em]
 

Re:Faster notebook drives. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43057779)

even then, SSDs aren't great for things that record a lot like a small form factor security system DVR.

Re:Faster notebook drives. (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#43057793)

I suspect that that's why they are killing the faster ones(which are slightly noisier and run slightly hotter). The market for HDDs isn't so much drying up; but strategies other than 'make the hard drive rotate faster' for making storage perform better have been getting cheaper and better pretty aggressively.

With modern areal densities and codecs, if your bandwidth requirements are routinely saturating a 5400rpm drive, you probably have something a bit more serious than a DVR in mind. If occasional bursts are giving you trouble, you can put in a lot of RAM cache for what it would cost to switch to an SSD of equivalent size, and a mere 7200 probably wouldn't have saved you.

Re:Faster notebook drives. (2)

EETech1 (1179269) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058197)

I'd bet that they have gotten much faster as a result of the ever increasing density of the platters as well. With the higher density drives putting bits past the heads twice as fast every time the density doubles, the additional ~40% increase in RPM is likely becoming less important, and for most people it's a better investment increasing the capacity.

Re:Faster notebook drives. (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058407)

Areal density improvements really accentuate the characteristics that disks have always had(in addition to being cheap and huge):

As you say, the density increases mean that the speed of the head in bits/second has been growing by leaps and bounds, even as actual platter speeds haven't budged in years. And, if you throw a lovely, contiguous, read or write at an HDD, you'll see results to match. Even a lousy little consumer disk can be pretty damn fast.

Under a random I/O workload, everything collapses into seek hell, and suddenly it mostly comes down to how fast you can get the head into position(which really hasn't improved all that much and has always been a sad story).

Re:Faster notebook drives. (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year and a half ago | (#43057853)

> Quiet and small form factor conventional drives have a place in things like Tivos and personal recording devices for TV

Nonsense. TV, especially HD TV is big, VERY BIG. This is especially true for terrestrial broadcast and cable that's still using outdated codecs like MPEG2.

If you are talking about "things like Tivos", you need all of the space you can get. The "footprint" issue is not a problem. Neither is noise as such devices have thrived with large desktop style hard drives.

A Tivo can use all the space it can get. Laptop drives don't provide any value and actually limit functionality while being more expensive. They're a case of "pay more to get less".

Re:Faster notebook drives. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43058113)

I can't understand what you're talking about, but I suspect you didn't understand what the GP was talking about and just continued on that mistaken tangent.

Re:Faster notebook drives. (1)

cgenman (325138) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058243)

3.5" and 2.5" drives are very similar once you get to the scale of a TV. And if you need performance, full-sized 3.5" drives go up 10 - 15k RPM. The difference between 7.2k and 5.4k isn't that great. And, of course, 7200 RPM laptop drives are absolutely not quiet, compared to other drives.

Re:Faster notebook drives. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43058299)

Umm SSD prices have been drastically dropping over the past few years.

SSDs still aren't that affordable (1)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year and a half ago | (#43057733)

Unless you buy a small one. The 750GB 7200 RPM hard drive in my laptop cost a little over $100, while an SSD of only 512GB is around $350. Close to $1000 for higher capacities.

When shopping for a hard drive I've found that you really have to look closely at the specs. If you can find them. Even for desktop hard drives, there are still a lot of 5400 and 5900 rpm drives out there.

Re:SSDs still aren't that affordable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43057765)

Well that's why they mentioned hybrid drives. The idea is that with a hybrid drive, all the very heavy IO operations will happen on the NAND storage, and things like movies and pictures, for which a 5400 RPM drive is more than enough, would be perfectly fine.

Re:SSDs still aren't that affordable (1)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | about a year and a half ago | (#43057791)

That's what hybrids are for. I just wish we could get large hybrids in the 'doze arena. One of those 3tb "Fusion" drives would be nice in my gaming rig. It seems silly that the biggest hybrid drive I can get with a SATA interface is 750 gigs.

Re:SSDs still aren't that affordable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43058189)

Unless you buy a small one. The 750GB 7200 RPM hard drive in my laptop cost a little over $100, while an SSD of only 512GB is around $350. Close to $1000 for higher capacities...

I'm curious, at what price point does common sense kick in?

Sorry, I don't mean to attack you personally here, but I really wish people would stop treating hard drives (especially laptops) like it's their dick, always worried that they don't have the biggest one out there. I'm willing to bet that the number of new laptop users who still have 50% capacity free after two years of use is quite high. Drive sizes got rather ridiculous in recent years, and user or even vendor (OS) demand hasn't exactly been driving a need.

Re:SSDs still aren't that affordable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43058247)

WEll idiots like you that only surf the internet? sure.

But i record video at 1080p on a real camera that costs $3500 and records at 45mbit per second And a real DSLR camera that shoots at 32megapixel

I need dual 750gig hard drives in my 17" laptop. and I use every drop of space in there.

Some of us do real work with laptops.

Re:SSDs still aren't that affordable (1)

corychristison (951993) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058293)

I had this discussion with a friend of mine recently.

My laptop came with a 500GB drive in it, I've had it since december and I'm barely using 30GB.

I mentioned to my friend I was looking at an Intel 120GB SSD. He brought up hybrid drives and insisted I get one of them. I don't have the need for a lot of storage on my laptop, that's why I have my desktop with 2x2TB drives in it. My laptop is not used (and it shoulnt be) in the same way as my desktop.

If in 5 years from now I'm still using the same laptop, and I need more storage, prices on SSD's will have fallen enough that I will buy a higher capacity drive.

Mini-RAID enclosures (2)

macraig (621737) | about a year and a half ago | (#43057761)

I predict there's going to be a few pissed manufacturers of 2.5-inch RAID enclosures.

Re:Mini-RAID enclosures (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43057939)

A 2.5 RAID enclosure should not be using laptop class drives.

Re:Mini-RAID enclosures (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year and a half ago | (#43057963)

Meh; once you have enough spindles, rotational speed is nice, but doesn't mean as much.

Re:Mini-RAID enclosures (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058167)

why? the miniscule difference in speed between a 7200 and a 5400 rpm drive doesnt make a fart of difference for redundancy, which is the real reason for raid in the first place.

Re:Mini-RAID enclosures (2)

macraig (621737) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058229)

Doesn't matter. Most people will buy 7200RPM drives instead of 5400RPM drives for their RAID box if they are available because the difference in price doesn't make a fart of difference. Those same people won't buy SSDs instead because their price and capacity do make a fart of difference.

Re:Mini-RAID enclosures (1)

edmudama (155475) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058431)

2.5" rotating enterprise drives (both SATA and SAS) are a standard form factor.

What they really mean (1)

Gonoff (88518) | about a year and a half ago | (#43057763)

"We can't gouge the customer enough if we give them 3 options.

At the moment, there is cheap and low performance, not cheap and good performance and finally hugely overpriced and theoretically even better performance with an added cool factor.

Yes, SSDs are faster but there are other bottlenecks in the system so the difference is not always apparent to users.

The theory is that if they take away the middle option, people will choose the option with higher margins. Hopefully, the practice will be that they get their 7200 drives from a different manufacturer.

Re:What they really mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43057859)

Hopefully, the practice will be that they get their 7200 drives from a different manufacturer.

This will absolutely be my solution. I was about 12-years-old when I bought my first Seagate drive, and I've been buying them for as many years now. I've got three 7200rpm 2.5" Seagate drives spinning on my desk at this moment and one 5400rpm 2.5" Seagate drive that has been retired to storage because of it's lesser performance. I'm not sure yet which brand my next harddrive will be, but it won't be a Seagate.

Re:What they really mean (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058255)

Meh, I left seagate years ago when their reliability started dropping like a rock. They are horrible drives, as can be seen by them significantly reducing the warranty from 5 years to 2.

Problem is Maxtor is Seagate now.. so your only choice is the people that bought the IBM Deathstar hard drive facilities...

Re:What they really mean (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43057883)

Nah, I think what they really mean is that the market for 7200 laptop drives is gone. The middle customer, that wants good performance but decent capacity, is going to choose a hybrid drive 9 times out of 10 relative to a 7200 drive - it's significantly (and more importantly, noticeably) faster for the things that people notice (bootup, often-used programs), and the cost premium is negligible relative to 7200 drives.

Honestly, I agree - I don't see any mass-market reason why the average person would want a 7200 drive over a hybrid drive. I can see a market for 5400 drives (cheap media storage), for hybrids (relatively cheap storage if you only have 1 hd in the laptop), and SSD's (speed), but the 7200 rpm drives really don't offer anything unique that distinguishes themselves. Maybe when hybrids were more expensive there was room, but as they keep dropping in price they're killing the 7200 market.

a different manufacturer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43057935)

IBM no longer makes hard-drives.
Maxtor no longer makes hard-drives.
Hitachi no longer makes hard-drives.
Samsung no longer makes hard-drives.
Quantum no longer makes hard-drives.
etc. no longer makes hard-drives.
Seagate and Western-Digital are your only choices, and collusion would be the correct term to use.

Re:a different manufacturer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43057999)

Toshiba makes hard-drives. They have a 3-year warranty compared to Seagate's 2-year. I do miss their 5, but I will stick with the longer warranty.

Re:a different manufacturer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43058155)

Toshiba may make hard drives. Curiously though at least several of their 3.5 inch drives are very clearly labelled as being manufactured for Toshiba by Hitachi. It is odd that they're labeling them that way, but they are. It can be seen in the photos for those models at Newegg. I've bought several of them while they are actually the same Hitachi drives I've been pleased with. Only time will tell if the newer models from this arrangement will be as reliable.

Re:What they really mean (3, Insightful)

cgenman (325138) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058263)

SSD's in this laptop cut boot speed in half. This is absolutely apparent, and I'd definitely swear by it as the most effective $200 speed-up I've put into 2 computers.

Re:What they really mean (1)

smash (1351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058401)

Hybrid in my MBP cut boot time from about 30 seconds to 13-14 seconds (from power button press, including EFI post). 750GB for 150 bucks.

bullshit... I say what about fucking vibrations? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43057797)

if you ever had an under 3.5lbs laptop with a 72K rpm hd you know what I'm talking about. And if you ever called up the laptop company and complained about it, then you really know what I'm talking about, especially after paying a kideny to have a "performance" hd, and an ultra-light laptop. The other kidney would have been for a 32g ssd.

Re:bullshit... I say what about fucking vibrations (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43058131)

PS: I am also a total moron

Re:bullshit... I say what about fucking vibrations (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43058271)

Well, 72000 rpms is blindingly fast and you have to expect vibrations with that kind of speed, not to mention the heat.

Hello, Western Digital! (1)

immovable_object (569797) | about a year and a half ago | (#43057817)

I use laptop SATA 7200RPM drives in my home servers all the time. They're small, efficient, cheap and fast.

I'd use SAS if I could easily add SAS to a home server for less than THOUSANDS of dollars.

If Seagate won't make the product, WD will. They'll get my business. I vote with my dollars.

I'm glad I sold my STX stock. This is a bad business decision.

Re:Hello, Western Digital! (1)

armanox (826486) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058055)

WD Scorpio Blue 1TB (5400RPM) outperform the Black drives, btw.

Re:Hello, Western Digital! (1)

smash (1351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058395)

Depends on the benchmark / workload. Throw random 4k IOs at both drives and the blue will get trounced.

They're free to do as they please (2)

e065c8515d206cb0e190 (1785896) | about a year and a half ago | (#43057845)

To all the whiny complainers above: they're free to decide what they want to sell or not. As a customer, you can always choose to buy somewhere else if unhappy.

Re:They're free to do as they please (4, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058003)

Sure, and people are free to complain about them. One way information is exchanged in marketplaces, which helps guide consumer decisions and price signals, is via discussion.

Re:They're free to do as they please (1)

genkernel (1761338) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058153)

To all the whiny complainers above: they're free to decide what they want to sell or not.

As a customer, you can always choose to buy somewhere else if unhappy.

Absolutely not. When there are few suppliers available in the market, monopolistic and oligarchic pricing make consumer choice very limited, in some cases to the point where they have no choice but to either purchase a product that is gimped, needlessly inefficient, or priced through the roof, or do without entirely. Consumer-marketed printers and ink/toner, the pre-installed crapware that comes with most PCs, and of course US ISPs are good examples of this I believe.

This decision by seagate almost certainly doesn't fall into that category, since, as other posters have noted, there may soon not be a substantial market for 7200 RPM laptop hard drives. However, simply stating "they are free to decide what they want to sell or not" is not a good reason to dismiss this.

Re:They're free to do as they please (2)

SeaFox (739806) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058451)

To all the whiny complainers above: they're free to decide what they want to sell or not.
As a customer, you can always choose to buy somewhere else if unhappy.

You can say that now. But a couple more buyouts/mergers and there wont be anyone else.

Nooo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43057875)

5200rpm laptop hard drives are dog slow. SSD drives may be fast but are unreliable if you give them load. 7200rpm drives are the sane choice for a heavily used laptop.

Re:Nooo (1)

smash (1351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058385)

No... hybrid 7200 is the sane choice, which is what they are still going to be building. Difference between 5400 large capacity drive and 7200 for same money in a laptop = very little difference, because on a laptop or desktop you're not doing a huge amount of random seek to make the rotational latency vs areal density trade off worth it. Hybrid on the other hand is MUCH faster than even 7200 in day to day use. Noi it's not SSD fast, but it's not SSD price/GB, either.

SSD (3, Insightful)

seifried (12921) | about a year and a half ago | (#43057881)

SSD's are definitely the way to go for 99% of laptop users (unless you need more than say half a terabyte of space), SSD == lower power, no vibration/shock issues, and waaaay lower latency. I've been replacing all the drives in my laptops with SSDs for a few years now, I can't imagine going back to spinning rust. As for large file storage in laptops I bet a lot of users can get away with USB sticks now rather than HDs anyways. About the only place for spinning rust now is as a tape like storage medium where latency isn't an issue.

Re:SSD (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058031)

Except for the fact that the spinning rust has 40 years of development behind it

Re:SSD (2)

demonlapin (527802) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058107)

So does silicon. We've had the technology for SSDs for a long time, just not cheaply.

Re:SSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43058123)

Except the 40 year old technology isn't any more reliable than the 5 year old one.

Re:SSD (1)

seifried (12921) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058309)

So by your argument we should be using clay tablets I suppose, they have several thousand years of development behind them!

Re:SSD (2)

Gothmolly (148874) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058095)

Why do you go through laptopS in "a few years"? What use case are you an example of?

Re:SSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43058111)

Dork with too much disposable income?

Re:SSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43058405)

Posting anon so as to not undo mods.

Actually, it can be completely the opposite of a dork with too much disposable income.

I buy the cheapest notebook I can (typically around the $300 mark) because A) I am working (independent contractor, employer doesn't provide resource) in an environment outside the USA where my laptop can be stolen or compromised in unacceptable ways in spite of my vigilance (fortunately, I have never had one stolen, but coworkers have, and there is no insurance available here) or B) if it gets damaged, it is probably going to get mangled (not just a screen crack), so buying a heavier duty notebook isn't going to help. All my non-cloud data is backed up on a weekly (and sometimes daily) basis, because that is what is important, not the CPU the data is used on. Hopefully obviously, I am not using my notebook for gaming or high computation intensive applications, my desktop is where 'work' like that is done.

If my notebook survives 2 years, I sell or donate it to someone who needs a cheap notebook, and I pick up a new one to start over with. My previous notebook was an AMD single core, currently on an Ivy Bridge dual-core, and my next notebook will probably be whatever follows Haswell if Intel maintains tick-tock. If I had too much disposable income, I might choose to spend more than $600 every four years on carry around compute capacity (or $300, if I wind up selling both notebooks in that time frame), but given my work situation I probably wouldn't. My desktop, however...

Users do care about perfomance (0)

gweihir (88907) | about a year and a half ago | (#43057909)

However, 7200 rpm is just not much faster than 5400 rpm. It can be slower in practice when the lower rpm allows higher data-densities and seek is not dominant. Also, 7200 rpm consumes more power.

Re:Users do care about perfomance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43058047)

Well it's 33 percent faster (or looking the other way, 5400 rpm is 25 percent slower), and it's more about rotational latency than seek. Right?

Re:Users do care about perfomance (1)

gweihir (88907) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058093)

You only get rotational latency if you seek, so they can be lumped together. But strictly speaking you are right.

Re:Users do care about perfomance (1)

smash (1351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058377)

Depends on the workload, but you're right - for desktop users they likely don't do anywhere near as much random IO (vs sequential) to make the rotational speed vs areal density trade-off worth it. However, a hybrid 7200 is much faster in the real world and hardly any more expensive. So i can see why seagate have just canned 7200s. Those who want them for arrays where the SSD cache is of dubious use on a per-drive level will buy 10,000 rpm or faster anyhow.

Sad (2)

Grayhand (2610049) | about a year and a half ago | (#43057993)

5400s are 90s technology. Sad that better than a dozen years later they are going to be the only option other than SSDs. Some benchmarks haven't been increasing that much since the late 90s.

Re: 5400s are 90s technology. (2)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058163)

So much for "innovation", right? And in the 90's (and I'm gonna borrow about 2 years from the next decade) we saw the ferocious increase in computer technology ranging from Mac OS System 7 and the invention of Linux and then Windows 3.11 at the beginning, to the first iteration of Mac OS X, solid contributions to Linux, and Win XP. Hardware went from a midline 40mhz with the 486 chip just getting going, to say 3.5 ghz near the end of the Pentium 4 run. Similar increases in hard drives and graphics/sound and other things. I among others was eagerly awaiting each new improvement.

Now it's 2013, "after even the Mayan apocalypse so to speak, ", and all I got is this "we're going back to 5400 drives" tshirt from Seagate. This is Moore's Law creaking at the seams because the next killer jump in tech to be "disruptive" as the biz types like to call it, is risky as get-out, and no one's taking the chance on it yet.

Re: 5400s are 90s technology. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43058295)

Not really. We saw Pentiums hit 3.8Ghz, then Intel went a different direction with the Core and Core2 lineup. We saw that it was possible to get more performance with less power using multiple cores, different execution strategies, larger cache, etc.

Platter density has done a lot to bring 5400RPM drives to yesterday's 7200RPM performance levels. Add in extra cache, NCQ, etc. and we have the Pentium/Core thing all over again.

That is, unless you think that platter rotational speed should have just continued increasing the way processor speed did between 1995 and 2005. I'm not sure how useful a laptop would be with 10 or 15K RPM drives, nor do I want to deal with a SAN or Server that has 60K-80K RPM drives in it.

Linux still needs support for hybrid technology. (1, Insightful)

WarJolt (990309) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058017)

Ubuntu 12.10 still does not support intel smart response technolgy. Added to that UEFI still has a few issues with Linux unless you are comfort with figuring it out yourself and don't even get me started about nvidia optimus. Google bumblebee. I want to keep around 7200rpm drives just for their simplicity.

Re:Linux still needs support for hybrid technology (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43058389)

Recent linux kernels support cache devices. Cache can be a compressed ram device (UPS or a bit of crazy required), or a faster drive like an SSD. It is a generic solution, and works for most filesystems supported by Linux. If you have an SSD and a spinning disk, you can cache that spinning disk (by default, the cache is optimized for reads since lots of writes to an ssd will kill it).

ZFS does one better, and separates out the read and write caches, so read can go on MLC and write can go to SLC. ZFS is more stable on Linux that BTRFS now, but you will need to run OOT patches. Might be better off running Debian kfreebsd, or just moving to real Freebsd, if you want to go the ZFS route, though.

Remeber when seagate was king of hd (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43058065)

and didn't need a "director of marketing and product management" tool to justify their decisions. 15 years ago I had a bunch of seagates installed on my servers running 24x7 that lasted at least 10-12 years. In the last 5 years I had 3 seagates on a desktop bite the dust.

How about (1)

bobstreo (1320787) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058173)

Re:How about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43058223)

Considering that their 512gb version costs more than a 1tb SSD and the write endurance is probably less than that of the typical SSD? No, just no.

the 2.5" formfactor is dead for spinning media (1)

bored (40072) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058179)

I've been predicting the 2.5" form factor being a dead end for a couple years now.

The reasons are simple. The places where a 2.5" form factor excel are the markets that the SSDs are going to take over. For laptops, the power, physical size and physical ruggedness constraints are strongly in SSD's favor. Especially given the capacity constraints already in place for 2.5" hard drives.

For enterprise use, the need for IOPS was the driving factor in packing more hard drives into smaller packages. Enterprise users were often strongly in favor of loosing capacity and paying significantly more for small increase in IOP performance. In comes SSD's which are stunning IOP devices. I've seen cases where a single desktop SSD can outrun a hundred thousand dollars of enterprise disk. At those kinds of performance deltas enterprise SSD's are dirt cheap.

In the end, its simple, you need price sensitive capacity you pick 3.5" hard drives, otherwise you pick SSDs. The additional price/GB increase for 2.5" storage puts it to close to ignore the advantages of SSD. Frankly, just for windows desktop usage replacing a harddrive with an SSD is such a huge advantage its amazing anyone sells laptops with hard drives anymore.

Re:the 2.5" formfactor is dead for spinning media (1)

Pentium100 (1240090) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058433)

Maybe they'll reintroduce 5.25" HDDs after some time - higher latency, but would be really high capacity and cheaper than multiple smaller drives...

Frankly, just for windows desktop usage replacing a harddrive with an SSD is such a huge advantage its amazing anyone sells laptops with hard drives anymore.

Because 1TB SSDs are expensive. Yes, SSD is faster than a HDD, but that does not allow me to store more files on it. On the other hand, I would like a laptop with a 3.5" HDD.

The world will be better for it (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058191)

Seagate's QC has gone down the toilet in recent years anyways. Even worse, it is following their customer support down the drain. They should stop making the 7200rpm drives, then the 5400s, then the SSDs, then everything else and just go away.

Need SAS ports on the laptops, then (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43058201)

7200rpm nearline-SAS drives are not going anywhere, and they are exactly these SATA devices, but with a SAS PHY and firmware, and better sourcing for the electronics (so, less crappy capacitors, and the controller board is not missing half the for-redundancy components that stabilize the circuit over its lifetime and during thermal stress).

I really wish we had SAS ports instead of SATA in the notebooks. You could still use SATA devices, or you could use properly built spinning rust that work for 3+ years.

Besides, SAS drives are usually 10k or 15k RPM, and you get nearline if you need 7k2 (higher density, very good electronics, a bit slower)...

What about people who want reliable & fast? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43058207)

The word SSD and reliable don't seem to mix in the real world. This may be due largely to the super capacitor issue and companies cutting corners (not using them)... but... it would seem to me there should still be a demand for traditional 7200 RPM 2.5” hard drives.

Re:What about people who want reliable & fast? (2)

smash (1351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058341)

The nand in hybrid drives is SLC and not MLC. SLC nand is a lot more reliable than consumer grade MLC.

makes sense (4, Interesting)

smash (1351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058335)

Having gone from a 7200 rpm drive to a hybrid, the difference is night and day. Yes SSD is faster (i have one in another machine but the difference between plain 7200 and 5400 is nothing like the jump to hybrid. Hybrid is not much more than a regular drive.

Why no integrated Raid5 SSDs? (1)

PerMolestiasEruditio (1118269) | about a year and a half ago | (#43058365)

if SSDs were made up of several smaller swappable/replaceable SSD chunks in a Raid 5 or 6 setup then that would basically put a stop to unreliable SSDs by giving a recoverable failure mode. It might also make it more practical to use denser and cheaper but shorter life flash memory in the SSDs.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>